THE 9/11 COMMISSION IN MORTAL DANGER

It behaved disgracefully and in a nakedly partisan fashion, with former officials of the Clinton administration attempting to use the platform to damage the president's reelection chances. Then, after months of ludicrous conduct, out of nowhere came the brilliantly conceived and written report that set a new standard of eloquence and coherence for government documents, became a major bestseller and redeemed the commission's reputation.

In a story filed at 7:10 PM, the Associated Press is now confirming all the particulars of what will now forever be called the Able Danger disaster. The 9/11 Commission staff did hear about intelligence-gathering efforts that hit pay dirt on the whereabouts of Mohammed Atta -- in 1999 -- and deliberately chose to omit word of those efforts.

And why? Because to do so might upset the timeline the Commission had established on Atta.

And why is that significant? Because the Mohammed Atta timeline established by the Commission pointedly insisted Atta did not meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague.

And why is that significant? Because debunking the Atta-Iraq connection was of vital importance to Democrats, who had become focused almost obsessively on the preposterous notion that there was no relation whatever between Al Qaeda and Iraq -- that Al Qaeda and Iraq might even have been enemies.

I was very skeptical of this Able Danger stuff about Atta, thought it was just sme way Rep. Curt Weldon was trying to sell a book. No longer. This is clearly becoming the biggest story of the summer -- the fact that, as Andy McCarthy alluded to, the "intelligence wall" set up by 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick when she was in the Justice Department did, in fact, cause the linchpin of the 9/11 attacks to evade capture by American law enforcement.

So was the staff a) protecting the Atta timeline or b) Jamie Gorelick or c) the Clinton administration or d) itself, because it got hold of the information relatively late and the staff was lazy?

More important, what will co-chairmen Tom (pound his fist on the table) Kean and Lee (look sorrowful) Hamilton do and say in the next 36 hours about this calamity?

DELIBERATELY STOLE NATIONAL ARCHIVE FILES...He and Jamie Gorelick ought to both be hauled into court and sued by Joe American!

YES YES YES YES !!! And SOMEbody or committee with a spine had better go after them and show them to be the partisan and sick seditionists that they are!!!

Check this out for SHEER lunacy and Clintonian propagandizing at its most transparent:

IN THE BALANCE..Legal and Health and Safety Implications of Terrorist Threats (TOO RICH!!)

Panelists for IN THE BALANCE: BIOATTACK include Richard Clarke former senior White House advisor and author, Against All Enemies; Martin O'Malley, mayor of Baltimore; Frank Sesno, CNN Special Correspondent; Congressman Charles B. Rangel, D-NY; Dale Watson, former executive assistant director for Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation; James Gilmore, former governor of Virginia; Charles Ramsey, District of Columbia Chief of Police; Susan Allan, M.D., public health director for the state of Oregon and former public health director for Arlington County, Virginia, during the anthrax attacks; and Warren Rudman, former New Hampshire Senator.

Panelists for IN THE BALANCE: CITY UNDER SIEGE include Clarke, Watson and Rudman, along with Dana Priest, national security reporter for the Washington Post; Ahmed Younis, national director, Muslim Public Affairs Council; Frank Keating, former Governor of Oklahoma who held that post during the Oklahoma City bombings; Jamie Gorelick,, former deputy attorney general of the United States; and Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union, among others.

===================================

If she isn't KICKED OFF THE Central Intelligence Agency's National Security Advisory Panel as well as the President's Review of Intelligence NOW ... I'M GOING TO START HAVING TERMINAL INTERNAL COMBUSTION. She needs to be FReeped, cornered, jaranged, probed, bombarded with emails, interrogated, and stripped naked of her layers of protective official covers ..BRING BACK JOHN ASHCROFT TO QUESTION HER AND LAY BARE HER MANIPULATIONS, CONNIVING, COVERUP AND SINS TO THE WORLD.

they should have listened to me:

April 18, 2004

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Washington Office: Tel: (202) 331-4060 Fax: (202) 296-5545
New York Office: Tel: (212) 264-1505 Fax: (212) 264-1595

To: The Commission Leadership
CC: Ms. Jamie Gorelick, Commission Member (also high-ranking member of previous Administration)

Dear Commissioners:

I have been disturbed by the revelations of this past week that Ms. Gorelick deliberately withheld specific information about her past responsibilities from the people that appointed the people to this commission.

Her job title alone should have been enough to disqualify her, it is apparent that she was in a position of very high power within the Administration just previous to the present one. It is also readily apparent that she is tightly related to many members of the previous Administration—many of whom were held over by the Bush Administration to maintain a level of continuity on these important tasks.

Her letter in the Washington Post this morning raises more questions than it resolves, making it obvious why Ms. Gorelick must not remain on this Commission and must be a Witness. It is readily apparent that:

Ms. Gorelick is unable to impartially judge people that she knew closely and worked with.

Ms. Gorelick will be unable to impartially judge people she worked for.

Ms. Gorelick never belonged on this Commission and does not belong on this commission now.

The fact that she had to write her letter for the Washington Post to defend herself is proof that the Commission is tainted beyond repair by her continued presence. It is also proof that she is under great pressure to do the right thing.

This is not a witch-hunt that is bringing her demise even though that is what will be reported by the partisan press. This is a basic question of fairness and conflict of interest. When she is removed, I hope that Commission leaders will keep this in mind as they announce this to the world. To suggest that this was in any way partisan or a political witch hunt or McCarthyism will only serve to further taint the Commission.

Did Ms. Gorelick disclose to any of you that she was so tightly involved in the “Wall” or that she prepared and signed the memo adding to it, or did you find that out from Mr. Ashcroft like the rest of us? Was she forthcoming that she might be an important witness before the Commission? Did she ever object to being named and have to be talked into it?

It is past time for Ms. Gorelick to do the right thing and resign. She should have refused service when asked but she didn’t so now it up to her to fix the situation or have it fixed for her.

Ms. Gorelick is knowledgeable about Conflicts of Interest. It is my understanding that she wrote a book on this very subject. Her continued presence can only mean that she is trying to make sure that the previous Administration is not examined fairly. Or she is afraid of being a witness and this is her best defense.

With her biased perspective removed, maybe the Commission can continue your work to help prevent the next 9-11. That is the important reason to be doing this now (while we are still fighting this War)—isn’t it?

If your purpose is instead to provide political ammunition for campaigning, then I can see why multiple TV appearances on cable and network news and opinion shows by all the members of the Commission would be a wise strategy. But, if you are trying to prevent the next 9-11, as charged, then you should stay away from the TV cameras and the easy sound-bites.

Once Ms. Gorelick resigns, or is forcibly removed from this Commission if she refuses to do the honorable thing, then she needs to be called as a Witness. I would also like to see her explain why she hid her previous activities from the people who appointed her.

All across America, people have seen what a partisan circus many aspects of this Commission have become. In this one area, you need to take steps to reduce this perception—remove Ms. Gorelick and call her to testify.

Sincerely,
A concerned American

Rob XXXXXXX

You know MO way before all this which is now comming to Greater light these are common sence thoughts many of us had when we learn of this WALL that was first set up by Jamie Gorelick

The 911 Commissioner and the Intelligence Wall
By Linda Chavez
April 14, 2004

Attorney General John Ashcroft came out swinging in testimony before the 9-11 Commission on Tuesday. "In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning, imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the law required," he said. "The 1995 Guidelines and the procedures developed around them imposed draconian barriers to communications between the law enforcement and intelligence communities. The wall left intelligence agents afraid to talk with criminal prosecutors or agents. In 1995, the Justice Department designed a system destined to fail."

But Ashcroft's bombshell wasn't his description of the Clinton Administration's policies, which have been discussed by previous witnesses. "Somebody built this wall," Ashcroft told the commissioners, and then went on to accuse one of the commission's own.

"The basic architecture for the wall . . . was contained in a classified memorandum entitled 'Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations,'" said Ashcroft. "Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this Commission." Ashcroft was referring to Jamie Gorelick, who served as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration.

From the beginning, Gorelick's appointment to the 9/11 Commission was problematic. She served not only as Attorney General Janet Reno's deputy but also as general counsel at the Department of Defense, jobs which put her at the heart of the Clinton Administration's anti-terrorism efforts. Her actions, as well as those of her superiors, are among the subjects this commission is tasked to review. How can she be expected to be impartial when it comes to evaluating her superiors, much less herself?

The memo Gorelick wrote has now been declassified and offers a window into the role she played in obstructing effective intelligence gathering and sharing during the Clinton Administration. The memo grew out of the Justice Department's prosecution of the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center -- the act that apparently gave Osama bin Laden the idea to try again in 2001.

"During the course of those investigations," wrote Gorelick in 1995, "significant counterintelligence information has been developed related to the activities and plans of agents of foreign powers operating in this country and overseas, including previously unknown connections between separate terrorist groups." But Gorelick wanted to make sure that the left hand didn't know what the right was doing. "(W)e believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

The problem, of course, is that the inability to share information is precisely what hampered federal agents in tracking down the 9-11 hijackers. As Attorney General Ashcroft testified, this artificial wall impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, who was arrested prior to the 9-11 attack, as well as Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, both of whom were identified by the CIA as suspected terrorists possibly in the United States prior to their participation in those terrible attacks. "Because of the wall, FBI Headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join in the hunt for the suspected terrorists," Ashcroft told the commission.

"At the time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote Headquarters," said Ashcroft, "quote, 'Whatever has happened to this -- someday someone will die -- and wall or not -- the public will not understand why . . .'"

Jamie Gorelick should step down from the commission at once. If she fails to do so on her own, her fellow commissioners should ask her to step aside. Her role as the architect of a policy that hampered the work of federal agents to track down suspected terrorists makes her unfit to pass judgment on the alleged failures of others.

To find out more about Linda Chavez and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/lchavez/2004/lc_0414p.shtml

I always felt this was a delibert act of treason of somekind way before the out come of 911

Just what were the CLINTONS INC. up too FOR THE FUTURE OF AMERICA?

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GET HIT ON THE HEAD BEFORE WE GET IT?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.